Message-ID: <8cJRx1-00WBwIE405N@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 04:45:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #634

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 634

Today's Topics:
			  Fred Betting Pool?
			 Re: Babies in Space
			 Re: Asteroid mining
	   Re: Progress? (was: Re: Ethics of Terraforming)

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  space+@andrew.cmu.edu.  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to
			 tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 24 May 91 08:52:58 PDT
From: jim@pnet01.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
To: crash!space+@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Fred Betting Pool?

Fraering Philip writes:
> I don't think Freedom's a good idea, but let's face facts:
> 
> 1. It will probably have its budget restored by the Senate.
 
Possibly, but probably?  Wanna lay odds?  My information from
actually doing some politics on this during the last week is the
support over there isn't as strong as the Administration would
like to portray it.  
 
> 
> 2. Killing Freedom will not transfer its money to space science.
 
Whoa!  When you have a political set up where you axe either
Fred or space science, I think it is safe to say a zero-sum
game is going on.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bowery      619/295-3164               The Coalition for
PO Box 1981                                   Science and
La Jolla, CA 92038                             Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 91 06:57:09 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!cook@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Cathi A Cook)
Subject: Re: Babies in Space

gwh@headcrash.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) writes:

>In article <12947@sybase.sybase.com> brook@alf.UUCP (brook mantia) writes:
>>In article <9551@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL> lev@slced1.nswses.navy.mil (Lloyd E Vancil) writes:
>>>Yes reduced gravity should cause problems for pregnancies and growing 
>>>children
>>Why?  Esp. for pregnancies.  I'd imagine reduced gravity might make pregnancy
>>easier.  Just wondering...
>>
>>PS:  If anyone knows of any good reference material regarding this subject
>>I'd be very appreciative. Thanks.

>	Developing tissues seem to behave wierdly (from bird egg studies)
>in zero-G.  It wouldn't be the pregnancy per se that was the problem, but the
>embryo's development.  Especially what would happen to its bone strucutre...

No scientific references here, but just a thought on pregnancy itself.
Pregnancy relies heavily on gravity (pun not intended) for lots of things.
One that springs immediately to mind is proper orientation of the fetus;
ie. head down position. Any woman who has ever been pregnant can tell you
that the fetus can find its way into many uncomfortable places even with
gravitational constraint. My first emotional reaction at the mention of
zero-g pregnancy was "OUCH!!!!"...

Also, I think there might be some problems with the pooling of fluid
in the tissues...I don't know how much placental blood flow relies on
gravitational cues, but I'd be willing to bet that it's a nontrivial
amount.

>-george william herbert

                            -rocker

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 91 00:10:09 GMT
From: news-server.csri.toronto.edu!qucis!akerman@uunet.uu.net  (Richard Akerman)
Subject: Re: Asteroid mining

In article <1991May21.193331.16008@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1991May21.150342.18827@watdragon.waterloo.edu> jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>>	The Sudbury asteroid has two advantages that allow it to produce
>>nickel at a lower cost than nickel produced by exploiting other asteroids.
>
>Just to nit-pick:  it is not in fact clear that the Sudbury mines are mining
>an asteroid.  The ore body is clearly the result of an impact, but whether
>it is the remains of the impacting body, or the remains of metal-rich magma
>released from deep in the crust by the impact, was not settled last I heard.

Just to doubly nit-pick: The Sudbury Igneous Complex is the result of two  
impacts, one leaving a 140 km crater dated at 1.8 Gyr, the other 9 km crater
dated at 35 Myr.

Also, remember that the iridium anomaly is noticeable because asteroids are 
enhanced in platinum group metals relative to the Earth's crust (the PG metals,
being siderophilic ["iron-loving"] have sunk down and alloyed with the Earth's
core).  Platinum group metals include, of course, platinum, and also I 
believe gold.

Richard Akerman
Incompetent Physics Graduate Student
no one pays any attention to the addresses I put down here

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 91 02:48:10 GMT
From: hpfcso!mll@hplabs.hpl.hp.com  (Mark Luce)
Subject: Re: Progress? (was: Re: Ethics of Terraforming)

/ hpfcso:sci.space / will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (will) /  7:08 pm  May 16, 1991 /

	Perhaps the Japanese can offer something here.  Acually the Japanese are
	very good at thinking about their future.  When Admiral Perry came to
	Japan over 100 years ago the Japanese at that time realized that it
	was best to think about the future than to fight America.  They did'nt
	think about 5, 10, 50 years into the future.  These quys where thinking
	in terms of generations and hundreds of years.  And as a result of this
	thinking are now a World class economic power.

	Just to quote Mr. Morita of Sony: "U.S. managers are often criticized
	for their short-term outlook, supposedly forced on them by Wall Street".
	(Morita recalls a chat with a money trader in New York) "I enquired how
	far ahead he looks, One week?, "No, No" came the reply. "Ten minutes."
	was the answer. If Americans think only in terms of 10 minute action,
	while we Japanese think in 10-year terms, America assuredly faces
	gradual decline".

	Respectivly, if mankind (as a hole, not just America) does not change
	it way of thinking about the future, then all of the grand plans of
	inhabiting our solar system or what-ever will also face disaster.

	By the way, the Japanese are changing.  I was surprised by one of my
	students that ask me to listen to an Joke about America.  Here is how
	it went:
		What is the difference between England and the Philippines?
		nothing.
		What is the difference between America and the Philippines?
		The number of whores.

	I personally did'nt share his enthusiasm of this being funny.  So I
	asked him where he heard this and his friend a Kyoto Univ. had told
	him of it.  Talking about America in decline.  The Japanese seem to
	think so.


							Will.....


     If the Japanese are thinking so far into the future, perhaps you can
explain why they are destroying the tropical rainforests of Southeast Asia
in order to make things such as disposable chopsticks...
     Japan, IMHO, faces some very serious problems in the near-term future
unless they are willing to submerge their general xenophobia, open up their
markets to other countries, and stop wasting the talents of half of their
citizens: their women.
     Japan is facing a severe labor shortage and a very rapidly aging
population. Japan is not necessarily the economic superpower of the 21st
century that everyone seems to blithely assume.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V13 #634
*******************